SA80

That's what every part of the British military that can choose their small arms has already done.

What quality does it offer any other reputable service rifle?
I'd gamble nothing

> WAAAAH! the post

This is what all you retards dont understand. Sure there are 'better rifles' out there. But they are better in such small ways that it essentially doesnt matter. The SA80 in its current form is as accurate, reliable and robust as it needs to be. If being able to change mags 0.0003 seconds faster won wars, every NATO army would be running some super slick custom skeletonised ARs or something. But they dont. Whats the point in buying expensive rifles that can hit a grapefruit at 800m when the requirement is for Rfn Bloggs to be able to easily hit a man sized target at 300m? There is none.

Just because there are 'better rifles' out there it doesnt immediately make the A2/A3 bad. It is a very capable rifle that does the job. This is why the american civilian firearms community is such an amusement to me; everyone clamouring over the new ABC5000 because 'its 200 grams lighter and has X features means everything else is irrelevant for SHTF!', 'this glock has a serrated slide meaning I can cock it faster when I get into that scenario where I can legally kill a bunch of niggers for insulting my honor!!!' If you spent time doing actual proper training youd know its not as much about the weapon as it is the person using it, especially with the plateau thats going on with modern firearms.

A weapon that does whats needed that you have solid logistics and training doctrine for is far better than constantly chasing the gucci new thing because itll improve some obscure function. And the SA80A2/A3 does everything we need it to, and has proven itself well everywhere its gone.

The reason Special forces use AR platforms is because they're special forces. It's not like Navy SEALs, Green Berets, and Delta force use standard issue Colt M16A4/M4A1s. No. They use HK416s, M4A1 Block 2s, 3s, SCARs, and MK18 CQBRs.

> every part of the british military that can choose

> UKSF, who use a multitude of weapons, use the L85 when working with British troops and Diemacos when working alone or with other NATO SF for the deniability and logistics
> that one RM Troop who guards nuclear facilities and needed a weapon that would shoot less powerful rounds

It's still a bullpup. But the A2 isn't unreliable like the A1. If you're able to accept the flaws of a bullpup, the A2 is fine.

This. Being a britbong, I don't have access to the latest Gucci AR gossip, (I'm more into actual military small arms), but it's just absurd how people try discarding it.

It massively grinds my gears when people who spend $3000 on a rifle and $4000 on kitting it out, only to shoot it from a bench, try to tell me that the rifle ive carried for half a decade in all sorts of conditions, environments and countries is shit because it isnt their gucci AR, and because they can legally buy semi auto firearms therefore they are immediate paragons of all firearms knowledge.

Fuck America fuck mutts

That was probably the dumbest thing I’ve ever read. Spec Ops don’t just use special snowflake guns to look cool. They are mission specific. The fact that none of them use the SA80 platform says a lot about it

> t. Never met any type of SF
If you had, youd know they actively try and use kit that differentiates them from the rest of the armed forces. Hence why they all started wearing Crye and growing beards; because they could.

Also, they do use the L85 when working with other British troops. Ive personally seen blokes from B Squadron SAS use L85s.

I didn't say it was to look cool. They're covert rifles that US spec ops actually use. Reread it if my example of your logic went over your head. It says nothing about the SA80 as it says nothing about standard issue M16s/M4s.

>pot metal
>heavy for bullshit reasons in the modern day
>right handed only

“better alts doesn’t mean it’s bad”

A SxS is better then a slam pipe, but the point is void if you’re in Afghanistan. That’s what this is. As a rifle? Gets the job done.

As someone with firsthand experience it is simple:
-it's too fucking heavy for its length (the FAL is about the same yet bigger)
-hard to clean because parts have just retarded shapes, also there are so many holes everywhere so that you just have to be innanormalwoods to get shit into all of it
-hard to operate: cocking handle on the right, mag release button is just awkward, safety and fire mode change lever too far away and the safety is not comfortable
-holding it is stupid due to bullpup design (carry it underneath your arm when not about to shoot with a sling that doesn't support you at all), when you crawl the ejection port will face the dirt

Why are you a liar?

> I used one once after being trained on a non bullpup platform

I have literally none of those issues and I carry it daily. First time I used an AR it felt awkward as fuck.

Spot the cadet

Cry and not be white somewhere else amerimutt

>Sa80 for a conscript army

You might as well just say you're an idiot and know nothing instead of hiding it in a paragraph of text

Also, they do.

Attached: lVb64wf.jpg (902x620, 108K)

the civilian side has much more legroom to tinker and do whatever they want with their guns, be it bench shooting, actually using it in classes or alone-in-woods LARPing, or just stupid youtube tests. Not to mention they are not stuck with a service rifle that's been around the block and is worn.

The military adopts things from civilian side, and vice versa, the military is just slow at it while the other side has fads come and go and some stuff that stick if it proves beneficial.

british cant do anything right

Just because your first experience with a firearm is a shitty bullpup design doesn't mean its good. The AR felt awkward because you have no other experience. If you had experience with other firearms, the AR would have felt familiar, because it is similar to a lot of other rifles. Just because you learned to do something in a retarded manner, does not mean it is the right way.

The civilian side, yes, may have more options, but it's elements are much more watered down than infantry, for one, they're all semi auto, while you have good gun rights your government will not give you actual military small arms, either that or it's expensive as fuck and not worth it, you won't really ever get to kill anyone, most neighbourhoods have some stalemate in which they simply don't fuck with each other and protect muh rights and muh liberty, you may get the odd burglar but unless you live in Texas you most likely won't be able to shoot him outright, the military of the first world will typically adopt things from major companies, be it, SIG, H&K, Colt, FN, Glock etc, all of which sell to the civilian market and military seperately, the military will adopt rifle platforms and nurture them, by making their own iterations, and making them adapt to modern standards along the way, sure you people have some degree of practicality seeing you live in western society on steroids but you're not automatically god tier firearm connoisseurs, just because you're prideful of your tacticool Gucci AR doesn't automatically make a first world countries service rifle inefficient at putting a bullet in a bad guy without jamming.

It means it got the job done for him, you people often imply from your lack of knowledge or plain ignorance that it would be uncomfortable for anyone being it's not ambidextrous, but it got the job done for him and it disproves the cliche flaws people accuse it of.

I shot shotguns and rifles plenty before I ever handled the SA80. Still loved it and still do. My point being that someone like yourself picking up an SA80 and screeching 'I DONT UNDERSTAND THIS SO ITS SHIT' means as little as me picking up and AR and going 'what the fuck is this, this is shit'.

As ive been saying this whole thread, training and personal proficiency is more important than the weapon itself, especially in the plateau of firearms design we are currently experiencing. Id rather take an SA80 than an AR into a scrap because im confident with it.

Sorry lads, but the reputation of your rifle is shit, even among the military community. Had some foreign weapons "classes" in the Canadian forces and basically the first words out of the instructor's mouth regarding the SA80 was that it was dog shit.

Mind you I don't think he or anyone else in that room had ever used one

>L85A1
Ugly, heavy, unreliable piece of shit that doesn't even attempt to make any accommodations to lefties
>A2
Ugly, heavy piece of shit that doesn't even attempt to make any accommodations to lefties
>A3
Ugly, really heavy piece of shit with rails that doesn't even attempt to make any accommodations to lefties

Face it, you guys should have gotten M16s

If you fags wanted a bullpup so badly, why didn't you get AUGs? At least they work.

That's like me asking why you didn't adopt the FAL platform, instead of dragging out the M14 and dictating the cartridge so we couldn't have .280 British for our design.

>Mind you I don't think he or anyone else in that room had ever used one
Deflates your point entirely. If someone is slandering something they have no experience with, then their opinion shouldn't hold any value.

Left handed here
Never had a problem with the SA80, trained to hold it with the right hand from the very beginning, same with playing the violin.
I also don't get complaints about the weight. Seems to me it solely comes from burgers whose only experience of the SA80 platform is reading the Wikipedia page. I never felt I got exhausted by having it for hours/days on end.

I'm sorry, what do you speak from? The SA80 is banned from import so you're most likely naive, don't bother trying to seem like you're not.

My point was that the rifle's reputation is shit around the world, not just within the American civilian market.

>10+ lb for a FUCKING .22 CALIBER
LMAO, RETARD ALERT

SA80 is the worst service rifle of any 1st world nation, period. Copy pasting the laundry list of cancer is too much.

I've only dry-fired weapons as a noguns bong but I have to say actually holding all these weapons from my vidya and the para instructor telling me about them flipped my expectations upside down.

I have to say I was surprised that guns are really fucking tiny, like toys, I expected them to be much bigger and heavier. The SLR and the FAL were super fucking light compared to the L85A2 and the LSW. Vidya led me to think the SUSAT was all thin but it was really chunky and you had to actually position your eye for a second to avoid seeing black. The Arctic Warfare 338 is ridiculous, you have to do some kind of magic eye focusing technique on the cheek weld or you'll just see black on the leopold or whatever it is.

One thing I noticed was ironsights are really tiny and rear sight hoods are a nuisance. The M16A2 was pure clutter, the FAL/SLR seemed really awkward, the AKM seemed like you could just noscope everyone in the room but I'm guessing the awkwardness of those sights is for the purpose of accuracy? Don't NATO all use ACOG/Red dot back up sights on top now? The ACOG on the other AR-15 type (dunno which) was really easy to use. I go my fingers all cut up from messing around with an FN MAG (think it was french) and got my hand caught when racking the M2 50 cal bolt so covered in gashes. Those two seemed liked beasts though. Most action I'll ever see outside of the cutlery drawer.

How does this stuff with the sights all translate into actual real world combat? Were any of the ones I mentioned genuinely badly designed?

Its just videogames being shit at depecting reality

>bongcucks defending the only vestige of national pride left
kek

All the morons in this tghread going on about WHAT SAS USE clearly just need to do a fuckin timecheck.

Here's the breakdown.

Back in the 80s, the Army used the FAL. This was not suitable for UKSF work, so they bought M16s instead.

Thus, UKSF got a lot of experience with AR platforms. They got used to it.

Time comes to change the M16s. What now? L85A1 is around, but it's dogshit. Not the L85 then, what else? C8? Okay its similar to what we know, it'll do.

Later on, L85A2 emerges and is a good rifle, but by then the UKSF are already using the C8 and have been for years. They're used to it, and there's little point in switching at this point when what they have already works.

It's not because "muh deniable ops", it's not because "L85 is shit because SAS don't use". It's just because it's what they've ALWAYS used since before the Army even had a normal assault rifle as we know them and are used to them.

Nothing fancier than that.

Why the fuck did I write "we" in there? I'm not UKSF. Just tiredness creeping in I think.

Meant "they"

I'm sorry but you seem to be the retard here.

Oh there's plenty I stand by, disproving your ignorance and having the same brick wall response isn't defending my pride, it's trying to reason with an echo chamber and failing to get into their thick skull.